And the most cr*ppy tracks in the U.S. are dirt tracks. These are lowest of all level racing and the lowest of low horses running. These horses are not sound to begin with. Tell me that's not a factor? Tell me at the Big A when everyone was on a claiming spree because of the slot money that those horses were sound and fit? They were NOT. These are bullcr*p stats that were not evaluated whatsoever.

And the most cr*ppy tracks in the U.S. are dirt tracks. These are lowest of all level racing and the lowest of low horses running. These horses are not sound to begin with. Tell me that's not a factor?

I don't think you even took a look at the report to see what tracks were providing injury data for this study, did you. Hint: With the exception of just a couple, the lowest of the low crappy ones ARE NOT.

Tell me at the Big A when everyone was on a claiming spree because of the slot money that those horses were sound and fit? They were NOT. These are bullcr*p stats that were not evaluated whatsoever.

Speaking of not evaluated whatsoever, you didn't bother to actually look at the report or the underlying numbers, did you. Many of those Aqu injuries happened in 2011, so wouldn't be included in this report - they were reported for 2011 and it shows up there. However, if you look at Aqueduct for 2012 their fatality rate was 2.34, which was lower than for instance Santa Anita (2.94) or Lone Star (2.53), both with no slots.

Quote

How many jockeys have been paralyzed or worse on synthetic tracks compared to dirt? MORE.

I tend to doubt that. I say most of the jocks that get seriously injured do so at "crappy" little dirt tracks. But we'll be glad to take a look at your stats and analysis thereof that say otherwise.

Quote

How many jockeys and horses have breathing problems from synthetic kick back compared to dirt?? MORE.

Never heard of him. Seriously. And just as seriously, if "Big Al" is of the opinion that synthetics are SO great for racing, then surely HE could come up with more than one semi-lame example of what kind of top-flight runners have been produced from 10 years of fake UK racing. In other words, I'd like Big Al to answer the question, if you don't mind.

And incidentally, what the heck does "best horse to have run over fake stuff in the UK" have to do with the claim of jockey or horse breathing problems?

I have no idea; whose premise is that?

I am approaching this from another angle: while synthetics may prove to be statistically safer than other racing surfaces...are they doing anything else significant for the game? Or are they just protecting below-average physical specimens (i.e., slow, uninteresting horses) from injury?

If it's just the latter, big whoop: let's make the game die of boredom, of all things.

Never heard of him. Seriously. And just as seriously, if "Big Al" is of the opinion that synthetics are SO great for racing, then surely HE could come up with more than one semi-lame example of what kind of top-flight runners have been produced from 10 years of fake UK racing. In other words, I'd like Big Al to answer the question, if you don't mind.

The issue of the thread and the study is safety, not great runners.

Quote

I have no idea; whose premise is that?

Rusty asked: "How many jockeys and horses have breathing problems from synthetic kick back compared to dirt?? MORE. Everything has to be put in perspective."

Al answered: "okay AP has had synthetics in for awhile, maybe we could get a list of jocks with breathing problems, just havent seen in in the UK where they have been racing on synthetics for over a decade."

And you were off to the races on that with: "Just wondering, Al -- who is the biggest "name" horse to have raced on the synthetics in the UK? Any Group I horses?"

So I'll ask again, "what the heck does 'best horse to have run over fake stuff in the UK' have to do with the claim of jockey or horse breathing problems?"

Quote

I am approaching this from another angle: while synthetics may prove to be statistically safer than other racing surfaces...are they doing anything else significant for the game? Or are they just protecting below-average physical specimens (i.e., slow, uninteresting horses) from injury?

Well, I'd suggest that you, too, take a look at the tracks reporting injuries in the actual study being discussed here, and make the determination on that. The fact that pretty much only the top tiers of tracks are reporting the injuries should tell you a little something about what horses are being protected.

Quote

If it's just the latter, big whoop: let's make the game die of boredom, of all things.

Or we can just keep letting horses die on the track and let the game die from PETA.

Well, I'd suggest that you, too, take a look at the tracks reporting injuries in the actual study being discussed here, and make the determination on that. The fact that pretty much only the top tiers of tracks are reporting the injuries should tell you a little something about what horses are being protected.

Or we can just keep letting horses die on the track and let the game die from PETA.

If all that can be said about synthetics is that they make for safe(r) but completely uninteresting races, then PETA can go find another dead horse to beat: the game is already kaput.

My larger point (racing on synthetics is completely boring, does almost nothing to provide any excitement about the game) stands.

Oh, stop already; it's too much for you to act like a dick and then lie about it all in one day. You knew *exactly* what you were doing with that snotty schoolmarm response. No one here is fooled.

I knew what I was doing, all right, asking you what the hell "best horse to run on the fake stuff in the UK" had to do with the subject at hand, or even the immediate post to which you responded. And now you have answered - absolutely nothing at all, except the words "synthetic surface".

Quote

"Major derailment", my ass: "Big Al" was able to figure out what I was talking about, and he's not quite the mental giant we all know you to be.

Big Al fell for your attempt to derail the subject and take focus off the FACT of the study that the fatality rate is 1/2 on synthetics what it is on dirt. That is the dirty little secret you're trying so desperately to obscure with your diversionary OT nonsense. You don't want people to focus on the fact that the synthetic surfaces are apparently accomplishing just exactly what they were intended to accomplish, because then more tracks might think about putting them in. You don't like the racing on the fake stuff because to you it is inscrutable, and you'd rather just keep right on killing twice as many horses for your gambling entertainment, rather that have the industry do what looks to be the right thing to do as far as minimizing fatalities.

Refocus, now. Here's the issue:

"In 2012, the fatality rate per 1,000 starts on synthetic surfaces was 1.03 compared to 2.10 on dirt and 1.74 on turf."

How significant are the California fairs in the study? Something like 6 out of 30 reporting tracks were from the fair circuit.

You also have quarter horse stats from Indiana thrown in there along with Portland Meadows. So we have about a third of the study comprised by tracks that some might find dubious.

You can click through to each of those and review their stats, if you really want to know. One thing about those fairs, they don't run many races, so their data gets swamped by that from the larger meet.

And as for the synthetic tracks, there are some who might find the quality of horse flesh at Presque Isle, Turfway, and Golden Gate just a bit dubious, too.

"In 2012, the fatality rate per 1,000 starts on synthetic surfaces was 1.03 compared to 2.10 on dirt and 1.74 on turf."

:::yawn:::

Too small of a difference to be meaningful; there just weren't that many horses dying on racetracks to begin with.

Anyway, I still contend (as I did years ago) that at least some of the improved numbers have to do with increased scrutiny of runners by the track vet at places that went through the expense of installing fake racing surfaces; really, what would be the point of spending all that money if you adhered to the old policy of "looking the other way" on iffy runners, just to keep average field size up? (No doubt in my mind that at least AP was letting sore horses race before they installed poly.)

Anyway, I still contend (as I did years ago) that at least some of the improved numbers have to do with increased scrutiny of runners by the track vet at places that went through the expense of installing fake racing surfaces; really, what would be the point of spending all that money if you adhered to the old policy of "looking the other way" on iffy runners, just to keep average field size up? (No doubt in my mind that at least AP was letting sore horses race before they installed poly.)

They increased their scrutiny, but in this day and age dirt tracks continue to look the other way?

They increased their scrutiny, but in this day and age dirt tracks continue to look the other way?

Weak. Really weak.

Yeah, maybe. You got anything that would indicate otherwise?

When Aqueduct started giving out that shitload of casino money, and horses were dropping like flies while every trainer tried to run anything they had with 3 legs and a prayer to try and get some of the boodle, what -- you think the track vet was strenuously checking to make sure no severely f'd up horses were running? You can't be that gullible.